[talk-au] The place Biniguy

[Warin]

On 09-Oct-17 04:33 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
>
>
> On 7/10/17 08:59, Warin wrote:
>>
>> Rather inconsistent! 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniguy,_New_South_Wales says the 
>> population 2011 was over 600.
>
> Yeap, need to be careful when interpreting ABS data. In 2011 Biniguy 
> was a 2500 square kilometre locality and had a population of 625. By 
> 2016 the Biniguy locality had been shrunk considerably and has a 
> population of 147. The population of the "CBD" around the silo is a 
> massive 78 (plus/minus the random error the ABS adds "to protect the 
> confidentiality of data"). The old NATMAP standard was that you needed 
> a population of at least 200 to be considered a populated place, so 
> I'm not sure if Biniguy even qualifies to be a hamlet.

OSM locality is defined as having a population of 0. Biniguy is more 
than that.... at least at the moment :)

>
>>
>> The relation looks to define the area. Does this need a place tag at 
>> all?
>>
>
> I don't know. When I started importing the NSW admin_level 10 
> boundaries the existing tagging practice was to add a place tag. I set 
> all of my place tags to locality by default and added a fixme tag to 
> review this. The most important thing seems to be to add the place 
> node to the admin relation as a label as this lets consumers like 
> Nominatim know that they are the same thing (it also allows the two 
> place tags to be programmatically checked).

One problem is that 'locality' does not translate well.
I'd think that any admin area would have someone resident in the area.
So tagging them OSM 'locality' may not be the best?

OSM says 'hamlet ' is less then 100-200 people. think that fits best?